Amy Wu says a lawsuit against Harvard for alleged discrimination against Asian Americans reflects widespread unease with a practice that will erode society’s competitiveness

Last month, a coalition of Asian American groups filed a lawsuit against Harvard University for discrimination in its admissions practices. It was about time.

The lawsuit argues that Harvard is unfairly rejecting high-scoring Asian American candidates on racial grounds. According to third-party research, Ivy League institutions such as Harvard discriminate against such candidates, not least by setting them a higher bar for standardised test scores.

The lawsuit has its supporters, but there’s also been a firestorm of backlash against Asians. And while the lawsuit is based on race, the more critical argument that is too often sidelined concerns merit.

Merit needs to be fostered. Whether it’s university admissions, employment or a sports team recruitment, available positions should go to the most qualified candidates. This is for the good of both the organisation and the individual. Companies should hire candidates that best meet the needs of the job.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against diversity. Ideally, people of various backgrounds and cultures contribute to the richness of a society. Racial and ethnic diversity can potentially and ideally add desired resources to underserved communities.

A case in point is the US medical world, where three out of four physicians are white/non-Hispanic, 17.2 per cent are Asian or other races, and just 5.3 per cent are Hispanic and 3.8 per cent black. Understandably, some predominantly black communities may feel more comfortable going to health care providers who share a similar skin colour. However, more often, I hear people say they choose their doctors based on skills.

A good friend at a medical school pointed out that some Hispanic and black applicants will be accepted to the college on a lower admissions test score than applicants of other races. But, very often, those students need remedial classes to bring them up to the level of their fellow students. The institution needs to bring in additional resources to try to get them up to speed.

The students themselves know they are “special”; they would not qualify for admission based purely on academic and school activity records.

Altering and lowering the bar to admit students who simply aren’t qualified is doing them a disservice. These students risk being overwhelmed and their chances of dropping out, losing confidence and becoming disillusioned are heightened.

Again, the argument extends beyond race. Last year, more than 8,000 Chinese students were expelled from US universities because they performed poorly or cheated, according to WholeRen Education, a US consultancy that caters to Chinese students. And rightfully so, because they didn’t qualify.

On the flip side, why should those who are qualified – in this case, high-scoring Asian American students – need to sacrifice a piece of the pie for another racial/ethnic group who are poorer performers? Maybe universities need to find a way to increase the size of the pie?

In the US, there are a myriad of programmes, such as the government-funded Head Start programme, that attempt to equalise the playing field for children from various socioeconomic backgrounds.

Why not, then, focus on expanding such programmes from nursery school to primary and secondary schools as a potential remedy? At some point, we must put aside the race debate and focus on merit for the good of the whole, to keep society competitive.

After all, wasn’t it the late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping who argued that, “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice”?

Jonathan Sullivan considers the KMT’s self-defeating choice of an ideologue for the 2016 presidential poll

The Kuomintang is expected to confirm Hung Hsiu-chu as its first female presidential candidate, ahead of the 2016 election, at its party congress next month. Hung, currently the deputy speaker in Taiwan’s legislature, has already passed the first step to nomination: a combined party and public vote. If, as expected, Hung’s nomination is confirmed, it will pit her head-to-head with Tsai Ing-wen, chairwoman of the Democratic Progressive Party.

For an East Asian polity with a significant “Confucian heritage” still manifest in patriarchal social norms, an all-female contest for the presidency is no small matter. Many Taiwanese are rightly proud of improvements in gender equality. But the gender of the two candidates is not the real issue here.

When Tsai stood for president for the first time in 2012, gender was a conspicuous non-issue. Tsai lost, not because of her gender but because voters did not trust her hastily assembled China policy. Tsai has since sharpened her thinking on China, and has adopted a position that appeals to the moderate middle. The same cannot be said for Hung, whose views on China are not shared by the majority of Taiwanese.

Hung is an advocate of faster economic integration leading to unification. In a long and undistinguished political career, she is best known for her strident ideological views. Until now a marginal character in the KMT, Hung has a reputation for pugnacity and a sketchy electoral record. She secured the deputy speaker position as a balance to the “local wing” speaker, Wang Jin-pyng, who prizes pragmatism in terms of future political solutions. Although her father was a victim of the KMT’s White Terror, a political purge during the martial law era, Hung has shown strong commitment to the party. In a polity where pragmatism is the norm, at least at election time, Hung’s commitment to old ideals and pursuit of unification with China is unusually steadfast.

This would not be a story if Hung’s nomination were consistent with the trajectory of Taiwanese public opinion. But the attitude of the majority of the electorate is moving firmly in the opposite direction, both on China and “traditional” attitudes.

The past four years have seen large-scale public protests against the policies of the incumbent Ma Ying-jeou administration. Widespread dissatisfaction was manifest in the KMT’s humbling losses in local elections in November last year. While many Taiwanese have been alarmed by the haste of Ma’s embrace of China, Hung has lavished praise on the outgoing president, and, if elected, would seek to deepen his integration policies.

There is nothing to suggest that Hung is capable of competing with a battle-tested and increasingly confident Tsai. Lacking Ma’s veneer of urbane sophistication and carefully packaged image of Confucian temperance, Hung has been compared by some observers to Sarah Palin or Barry Goldwater, candidates known for their “challenging” views and electoral failure. With the KMT already vulnerable due to dissatisfaction with Ma and facing an uphill struggle against a resurgent DPP, why is Hung set to get the nomination?

The simple answer is that the party is bereft of choices. Hung is an accidental candidate, the last woman standing when all others sought to avoid what looks like a poisoned chalice, or were blocked by factional battles.

KMT chairman Eric Chu is the candidate with the best chance of challenging Tsai, but he has refused to stand from the outset. His promise to constituents in New Taipei City, where he was re-elected mayor last November, not to run, has provided him with the perfect cover. Wang, the figurehead of the “local wing”, was willing to stand. But his possible candidature was halted by his embroilment in a long and bitter battle with Ma’s China-leaning faction.

Ultimately, facing the need to draft a candidate rather than execute its normal primary procedures, the party has settled on the undaunted Hung. Cynics note that Hung’s unexpectedly strong performance in the public nomination poll and subsequent opinion polls may have been boosted by DPP supporters eager for her to run.

If and when Hung’s nomination is confirmed, the impact on Taiwan’s political landscape could be significant. Hung’s political beliefs are out of sync with mainstream public opinion – although they do represent a segment of society. As a candidate espousing non-mainstream views, magnified by an uncompromising personal style that is likely to turn off younger voters, Hung could inflict lasting damage on the KMT.

At this juncture, six months out from the election, it is unlikely that Hung could beat Tsai. A more likely outcome is one that has, to date, been unthinkable: that the KMT may lose both the presidency and control of the legislature for the first time.

If the KMT suffers a heavy loss, the party will face potential ruptures. Factional cleavages in the party are long-standing. Despite several splinter parties breaking off, the core party has held together because it has had superior resources and political capital. But if substantial losses in 2016 compound the loss of its control over local politics, the KMT will be weakened to the point that it may no longer be able to cover over the cracks in its ranks.

Despite his unpopularity, Ma’s faction retains influence. On the other hand, Chu is the obvious leader of a younger generation of more Taiwan-focused KMT politicians. A catastrophic performance in 2016 could go a number of ways. If Chu is held responsible, more conservative, China-leaning elements will have the upper hand. Yet, a disastrous electoral performance may be what the KMT needs to renew itself, post Ma.

Hung’s candidacy is a risk for all involved; except for Hung herself, who has nothing to lose and appears to be relishing the spotlight. With typical chutzpah, she has offered Chu the chance to be her running mate for vice-president (which he declined).

Moving the KMT back to the political centre and waiting to fight again in 2020 was the party’s best option. An ideologue fighting against the tide of public opinion will take the party in a different direction.

Jonathan Sullivan is associate professor and deputy director of the China Policy Institute at the University of Nottingham

我想，「人活着為了什麼」的答案難以解釋，不是因為沒有答案，而是問的方法本身負面，導向成「人生只有生老病死，沒什麼意義可言」或是「冥冥中有主宰」一類非黑即白的結論。年多前去過德國慕尼黑近郊的達豪集中營（Dachau），再讀「意義治療」（Logotherapy）創始者弗蘭克（Viktor Frankl）所著Man’s Search for Meaning，發現宗教和這門存在主義提倡的人生意義一樣，就是要超越自我──人不應該去問他的生命意義是什麼，反而要問人生對我們有什麼指望（what life expects from us）。